Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Canadian Malcontent]

Paul sorry for calling you tedious it was unfair and innacurate, please forgive me.

Yf,
CM

 

[Paulhoff]

Nothing to forgive.

Paul

 

[Garrette]

You are being tedious, I dont believe you can be as ignorant as you seem to be.
Did I say " the meaning of Scripture is a matter of personal choice"? No!
How did you infer the same?
Answer that one smart guy!

Please re-read what you have posted earlier:

Kurious kathy and I can read the Bible and be nurtured and instructed by the Living Word of God as can you Garrette. But what I cannot do is apply my understanding to your relationship with God or to your life in general and represent MY words as Scriptural Truth. You see there is God's Word and there is my understanding of it. the two are different things entirely and its very important not to get them mixed up.
Do you understand?

wat im doing is saying what Scripture means to me; and pointing out that one should read and understand for oneself because my words are hearsay to you.

When you say that (my words, paraphrasing yours):

a. The only way to understand god’s word is to read scripture

b. Your understanding of god’s word based on your reading of scripture is not the same as god’s word

c. Neither is anyone else’s

d. You can’t tell anyone else how to interpret scripture

e. But everyone’s version is acceptable

f. Unless you don’t like it (like you don’t like mine—I’ve read scripture), based on criteria you will not divulge


Then you most definitely are saying that the meaning of scripture is a personal choice.

In addition, you are saying that all interpretations of scripture are meaningless, that the true meaning can never be attained, and you’re beliefs are based on smoke and wishful thinking.

Now I doubt you’ll agree, but I contend that that’s quite a smart enough reply.

 

[The Atheist]

I'll guess that God was playing cosmic golf somewhere in the infinite firmament. If you have that long to work on your game, odds are you'll straighten out that slice and learn how to hit a cut knockdown into the wind from a hardpan lie.

DR

Deja vu - I'm having almost exactly this discussion on a christian board right now.

If god's omnipotent, he had no need for practice and could have crunched the entire universe out in a millisecond.

Why waste all those billions of years and why use trillions of stars when we can't even see 99.999999999+% from Earth? Very poor planning for a god.

 

[RandFan]

Well sir, the very best I can do is suggest that 'emotional' replace spiritual in the text and you briefly reconsider it. I appreciate the difficulty in communicating my apprehension. I feel that I have gone off course with respect to the nature and purpose of the forum. I will try to do better in the future, barring my attempts at comedy of course which I am afraid will be inflicted upon you time to time ( I am working with a Doctor on this problem but things are not going well as he refuses to embrace my 'Prayer Program ' approach to psychiatry).

As one who often fails to communicate my ideas I can empathize. That said I really don't understand your point. Your post still ends by asking me where will I reside regardless of whether I use "emotional" or "spiritual".

In any event you seem to want me to see your post in a less serious light. If that is the case then that is fine. I take exception to patronizing posts that exhort me to consider religion. It has the exact opposite effect I assure you. That is how I took the post and I will now simply take it in the spirit I now think you are offering it. Sorry I'm being a bit equivocal but you have not made my job easy. I've been there done that so this is not a complaint just an explanation.

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

reply to Rand, above

Thank you Randfan, I did preach in the original, you questioned 'spiritual' and I suggested emotional as an alternative. The alternative does not however support the final question 'Where will you stand?' and so I would like to withdaw the question. Its too preachy.

Yf,
CM

 

[RandFan]

Thank you Randfan, I did preach in the original, you questioned 'spiritual' and I suggested emotional as an alternative. The alternative does not however support the final question 'Where will you stand?' and so I would like to withdaw the question. Its too preachy.

Yf,
CM

Thanks, as to YF, likewise.

RandFan

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

[/color]

Please re-read what you have posted earlier:





When you say that (my words, paraphrasing yours):

a. The only way to understand god’s word is to read scripture

b. Your understanding of god’s word based on your reading of scripture is not the same as god’s word

c. Neither is anyone else’s

d. You can’t tell anyone else how to interpret scripture

e. But everyone’s version is acceptable

f. Unless you don’t like it (like you don’t like mine—I’ve read scripture), based on criteria you will not divulge


Then you most definitely are saying that the meaning of scripture is a personal choice.

In addition, you are saying that all interpretations of scripture are meaningless, that the true meaning can never be attained, and you’re beliefs are based on smoke and wishful thinking.

Now I doubt you’ll agree, but I contend that that’s quite a smart enough reply.

Try this; You and I are unique individuals who will upon witnessing an event give different reports on the event.
This is due to our unique persectives on the event as well as what stands out to us individually which will be different as we are different.
The 'meaning of God's Word' to you relates to you as a unique individual as it does to me. Therefore our personal interpretations of Scripture will be as different as we as individuals are. The words and their meanings do not change, the understanding varies is all.
It works the same when Huckleberry Finn is the work in question.
Hows that?

The 'true' meaning lives in the heart of the reader or hearer (when spoken verbatim).
"The Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao" Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, translation by Gia Fu Feng and Jane English ( my only source of Lao Tsu)

 

[Paulhoff]

It is so funny to me to hear people talk about the so-called spiritual world and the material world as being so different. If one where to take out all the space between atoms and all the space out between the nucleus and the electron and all the space out of protons and neutrons, the earth would be smaller then a grain of sand and a black hole about 6 tenths of a inch across. All that we normally see, touch and hear has to do with the electromagnetism, all the great diversity has to do with that one force. If one needs a spiritual world, just look around.

Paul

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

It is so funny to me to hear people talk about the so-called spiritual world and the material world as being so different. If one where to take out all the space between atoms and all the space out between the nucleus and the electron and all the space out of protons and neutrons, the earth would be smaller then a grain of sand and a black hole about 6 tenths of a inch across. All that we normally see, touch and hear has to do with the electromagnetism, all the great diversity has to do with that one force. If one needs a spiritual world, just look around.

Paul

Bother Pauliesonne!!!
Rightfreakingon!!!!!!!
EGGZACKLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perceptionwise I like to interchange spiritual and emotional. It works for me!!!
Spiritual? Ok i will play along. But for me emotional does it and I embrace the Bible and what I get from it as well as the rest of my feelings/unexplained perceptions as emotional matters cuz if there is 'spiritual' my only window on it is emotional. Further whatever 'it' is it fits into what we have somehow.
'It' is there, its just very difficult if not impossible to grasp. Still I try. Best i can.

Your observation always brings to mind Ecclesiastes 1:1
"Vanity of vanities, all is vanity."

Yf,
CM

 

[Paulhoff]

The human brain over millions of years has developed so that it looks for patterns in things, and this is unfortunate for many. That is because they need to have an answer right now, even when all is not known about something. So sorry to say, they have come up with a thing called a god, when in truth, this god does not answer anything but what they want it to be.

Paul

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

The human brain over millions of years has developed so that it looks for patterns in things, and this is unfortunate for many. That is because they need to have an answer right now, even when all is not known about something. So sorry to say, they have come up with a thing called a god, when in truth, this god does not answer anything but what they want it to be.

Paul

Ok but God even as a creation of man serves His prescribed purpose.
Dont forget that there is NOTHING we do not corrupt, we can have within ourselves an island of purity or faith/hope in the same. Mayhap such a thing is a positive thing overall to an individual.

 

[Paulhoff]

Ok but God even as a creation of man serves His prescribed purpose.
Dont forget that there is NOTHING we do not corrupt, we can have within ourselves an island of purity or faith/hope in the same. Mayhap such a thing is a positive thing overall to an individual.

Sorry, but the better answer would be, now wait for it, here it comes, “I don’t know” and with that saying the following, “This is what I think from my pass experience” and with that “What those experiences are”. No god is needed for this.

Paul

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

Sorry, but the better answer would be, now wait for it, here it comes, “I don’t know” and with that saying the following, “This is what I think from my pass experience” and with that “What those experiences are”. No god is needed for this.

Paul

True, for me, 'A better answer could be' however the depth of feeling I recieve with God, the surety. Demands my inclusion of Him, at the very least demands my testimony to Him when asked.

 

[Paulhoff]

But, which idea of god?

Paul



I need none.

 

[Canadian Malcontent]

Paulhoff, is it me or does your statement , "I need none ( idea of God)". imply that you have or recognize the or a idea of God?
I myself have not an idea of God but a knowledge of God, a recognition a perception of The Almighty.
This knowledge is not a matter of mind but one of the entirety of my perceptive faculties conscious,emotional, 'subconscious' et al.
This 'knowledge of God' is not a matter of choice as much as a condition. Choice is what I make in turning myself to or away from God/'knowledge of God'.
Your last post leads me to believe that you recognize 'God'.
Yf,
CM

 

[Paulhoff]

I myself have not an idea of God but a knowledge of God, a recognition a perception of The Almighty......
Your last post leads me to believe that you recognize 'God'.

First, I recognize words and god is a word, but it does not explain the idea in full.

Second, ideas come from knowledge, but just saying that you have knowledge of something like a god, does not make that knowledge true. Knowledge is like having a lot of scientific books, and not applying the knowledge in those books into ideas makes them worthless.

You still haven’t given me you idea of a god besides quotes from the bible which would give one a poor idea of a god from the start.

Paul

 

[Garrette]

Try this; You and I are unique individuals who will upon witnessing an event give different reports on the event.

Agreed.

This is due to our unique persectives on the event as well as what stands out to us individually which will be different as we are different.

I think it’s a bit more complex than that, but I understand and agree with the gist of it.

The 'meaning of God's Word' to you relates to you as a unique individual as it does to me.

Therefore our personal interpretations of Scripture will be as different as we as individuals are. The words and their meanings do not change, the understanding varies is all.

I follow that, but I still don’t think you are comprehending the implications.

My interpretation is not only different from yours, but it is different from my own of twenty-five years ago. My current interpretation is not at all favorable.

In fact, my interpretation leads me to discard it.

Your god has, therefore, knowingly written a document that would lead me to interpret it as the inconsistent work of many humans with merely human inspiration and human motives.

I suppose I could evangelize in such a way that I try to get people to believe in a god who chooses to make some people disbelieve in it.

Further, since it is an individual thing, then there is nothing to give the christian bible any more credibility than the koran or the baghavad ghita (sp?).

It works the same when Huckleberry Finn is the work in question.

Hows that?

Mark Twain never claimed divinity, omnipotence, omniscience, nor perfection.

Are you suggesting that it would be as valid for someone to use Huckleberry Finn as their bible as it is for you to use the bible as yours?

The 'true' meaning lives in the heart of the reader or hearer (when spoken verbatim).

So it can be spoken? Which means it is discoverable?

Who has discerned it? What is it? How do we know they’re not blowing smoke?

"The Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao" Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching, translation by Gia Fu Feng and Jane English ( my only source of Lao Tsu)

This is counter to your previous statement.


Let me put it in one point: Since god is not only perfect but also omnipotent and omniscient, then he intended that I become an atheist.

 

[Paulhoff]

1. If a religion fundamentally says "We are right, everyone else is wrong", then it is harmful.
2. If people within the religion are not able to challenge their religion, then it is harmful.
3. If a religion holds back or puts down anyone within the religion, then it is harmful.
4. If a religion does not allow anyone to leave and or change their believes, then it is harmful.
5. If a religion holds back or puts down anyone outside their religion, then it is harmful.
6. If a religion says that god is only behind their country, then it is harmful.
7. If a religion keeps you blind to the people real needs, then it is harmful
8. If people within a religion lies to protect it's members, then it is harmful.
9. If a religion lies to protect itself from the truth, then it is harmful.
10. If a religion lies about the truth, then it is harmful.
11. If a religion says that if you are not the norm, you are no good, then it is harmful.
12. If a religion separates their god from nature, then it is harmful.
13. If a religion does not change has information about the world and universe change, then it is harmful.

Posted before

Paul



9 and 10 are so true with many born-again people.

 

[sphenisc]

Do your 13 statements apply only to religion, or to all other human activities?

If so, then is there any human activity which isn't harmful?